SPEECH 


W'' 




/ ■ 

HON. ROBERT B. HALL, 


OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



THE ASSAULT ON SENATOR SUMNER. 


DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 12, 1856. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
1856. 





Co' 


rv/ 


: c. 

»• .j. • 



L' 






ASSAULT ON SENATOR SUMNER. 




The report of the committee on the alleged assault of 
Iforv. Preston S. Brooks on Hon. Charles Sumner, of 
the Senate, being under consideration,— 

Mr. HALL, of Massachusetts, said; 

Mr. Speaker, I agree perfectly with those gen¬ 
tlemen who assert that all Jurisdiction in this case 
i.s derived from the provisions of the Constitu¬ 
tion of the United States. We know no higher 
source of political power, and to no other quarter 
can we direct our eyes to discover what are our 
rights to preserve the independence and efficiency 
of this House. 

The question which we are now called upon to 
determine is, simply, how the Constitution is to 
be interpreted in those provisions which it has 
made in relation to the privileges of Congress 
as a deliberative body. The Constitution is a 
singularly brief and comprehensive instrument, 
generally; but, in reference to this subject of 
privilege, all its provisions are contained in two 
articles: 

” Art. 1, Sec. .5. Each House shall be the judge of the 
♦•lectioiis, returns, and qualifications of its own members.” 

* * “ Each House may determine thejules of its own pro- 

't-eedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, 
with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. 

Sec. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall, in all 
t-acies, except treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be 
privileged from arrest during their attendance at the ses¬ 
sion of their respective Houses, and in going to, and return¬ 
ing from, the same ; and for any speech or debate in either 
House they shall not be questioned in any other place.” 

From the tenor of remarks made on the other 
side, it would seem that any sort of privilege, 
except described in precise words, adapted to 
each possible case, is a mere figment of the 
imagination, and all parliamentary law is set 
aside a.s irrelevant and inoperative. But, after 
all, nobody doubts that Congress has privileges. 

It cannot be the only legislative body in the 
world, and confessedly an improvement on all 
others, without any privileges by which it may 
protect its own existence, and vindicate its dig¬ 
nity. The very fact of its republican constitu¬ 
tion, as the representative of a Democracy, for¬ 
bids the idea that it is not rather fortified against 
the turbulence of the people without, and the 
influence of ruffianism within. ll 


How, then, ai*e we to interpret the doctrines 
of privilege which are set forth in the Constitu¬ 
tion, few and simple as they are? The instru¬ 
ment, it is confessed on all sides, lays down, in 
express terms, only those great and general prin¬ 
ciples which affect the essentials of the peculiar 
government which it establishes, and all the ar¬ 
rangements necessary for the carrying on and 
perfection of a free government are obviously 
included in the fundamental principles expressed. 
From these general principles are to be inferred all 
necessary specific powers to render them availa¬ 
ble in practice. The mode of their application is 
to be determined by the tendency to make them 
effective in given instances. 

We are also to interpret the Constitution, as 
we do all other written documents, by a reversion 
to the history of the time when it was formed, 
and, if possible, identify what were the feelings 
and modes of thought of the men who made it, 
and ascertain what were the circumstances by 
which they were surrounded. Those noble men, 
sir, who have bequeathed to posterity names 
which can never die, the foremost of their day, 
and renowned alike for valor, virtue, and learn¬ 
ing, did not occupy the position which has been 
charged upon them on this floor. They were 
too wise to cast away all the teachings of the 
past, and did not essay to construct the edifice of 
free government anew, disdaining to use the pre¬ 
cious materials at hand, and seeking only for 
novelties and to produce startling effects. No, 
sir; they were stern adherents of old English lib¬ 
erty and law, and their quarrel with the mother 
country was not that she prized and venerated 
Magna Charta and the British constitution, but 
because she violated it; and they, too, were Eng¬ 
lishmen. All their ideas were modeled on the 
principles and practices of English and colonial 
legislation. They were disciplined in that school, 
and from that school they had learned their rights 
as men. Most of them had served in the Legis¬ 
latures of the several colonies, as representatives 
in New England, as delegates in North Caro¬ 
lina, or as burgesses in Virginia, and there they’ 
had first defined and defended their liberties. 
Of coui-se they were pervaded by a spirit essen¬ 
tially different from that of complete and radical 








4 


chan‘:i;^e in the constitution and government of the 
legislative bodies to which they should commit 
the future destinies of the people. They did not 
even stop to question the abuses of the English i 
parliamentary law, great as they and their ances- j 
tors knew them to be. They reco-gnized its great j 
principles of right as essential to the free and j 
unfettered exercise of the highest prerogatives of t 
deliberative bodies of freemen. 

This view of the matter is confirmed by the 
early action of those very men and their cotem¬ 
poraries after the Government of their choice j 
was organized and in action. The first rules of 
order and proceeding were, for the most part, 
derived from the precedents of Parliament. Mr. 
Jefterson was called upon to make a digest of 
parliamentary law;and the result of his labors is 
embodied in the Manual, which has ever since, 
as then, been recognized as a standard of ap¬ 
peal in all vexed questio^ns, either of order or 
privilege. It cannot be denied that the precedents 
and dicta therein contained have always had a| 
controlling influence on Congress. Though never | 
adopted as a rule by express vote of either House, I 
yet they have been recognized, by common con¬ 
sent, by long use, as fundamental and conclusive. 
At any rate, they are the highest source of illus¬ 
tration on all questions of order and privilege, if i 
not sanctioned as strictly legal and authoritative, j 
Simple, then, as the Constitution is in its Ian- j 
guage, brief and sententious as its provisions 
applicable to the question before us may be, yet j 
the modest sentences of the articles quoted, when | 
justly interpreted, so that the real meaning of | 
their authors may be discovered, are amply suf¬ 
ficient to cover all the ground which is necessary 
to perpetuate the existence,and to affirm all neces¬ 
sary and just privileges of this House. I 

Besides, the constitutional grant of the privi-1 
leges enumerated defines no limit to them, be¬ 
cause those limits can only be defined by the exi- 

S encies of individual cases; as, for instance, in 
le provision for security from arrest in going to 
or returning from the sessions of (’ongress. It 
has been held, on the occasion arising involving 
the nature of this privilege, that the time allowed 
in “going to, or returning from,’.’must be de¬ 
termined by a variety of circumstances, of which 
either House of Congress might judge, as the 
case might be. So, also, there is not in the Con¬ 
stitution any inhibition of the exercise of privi¬ 
leges which have been coeval with Parliaments. 
The fact is, that privileges are inherent in the 
nature of every free legislative body. They must 
have within themselves the power of self-preserv¬ 
ation and protection; they must have some means 
to secure respect from their members, and from 
the people, whose representatives they are. 

This matter before us—the assault on Senator 
Sumner— comes to us on complaint of the Senate, 
and should be examined as such, although this I 
House had instituted a previous investigation, j 
The complaint was referred to our committee in 
due form, and they have recognized it in their re-' 
port. Tliey complain that a breach of their priv-1 
lieges has been committed by a member of this ■ 
House. Beyond this record we ought not to go. | 
The Senate has the sole power to determine what 
are their privileges under the Constitution. This 
House, nor any other tribunal, the Supreme Court, 
nor the Executive, has no lawful cognizance of 


the question. The Senate have also the sole 
power to determine whether, in this or any case, 
any breach of their privileges has been committed. 
They have likewise the power, in usual cases, 
where no conflicting privilege can be pleaded, to 
punish such conduct, and have often exercised it. 
We are possessed of their judgment in the case 
before us, and their adjudication of the question 
is conclusive on me and this House. I submit, 
too, sir, that the circumstances under which their 
judgment was pronounced give it great additional 
force and solemnity. What are those circum¬ 
stances? Did a bare majority, under a partisan 
or other unworthy impulse, make this complaint, 
from sympathy with the assaulted member of 
their body ? Were the feelings of the members 
so enlisted on the side of Mr. Sumner, that they 
could not forbear to seek a speedy revenge on his 
assailant? No, sir; nothing of this. This judg¬ 
ment was pronounced, and this complaint was 
made to the House by the unanimous vote of a 
body, the most of whom were politically, and 
some of whom were personally, hostile to tha 
Senator from Massachusetts: a fact very greatly 
to their credit, and calculated to perpetuate the 
favorable estimate of the character of that body 
in the eyes of the people. Without passion, 
soaring above prejudice, and scorning the influ¬ 
ence of every base motive, those fathers of tha 
land acted independently, wisely, and well. This 
circumstance commends their action to the most 
respectful regard of the House, and should not 
be without due weight in determining our action. 

In some way the privileges of the Senate must 
be vindicated, or the Constitution is a mockery. 
They forbear to punish the aggressor, respecting 
his privilege, as a member of this House. If we 
have, as is claimed, no jurisdiction in this matter, 
why did not gentlemen oppose the reception of 
the complaint of the Senate ^ Why did they allow 
so gross an infringement of decorum on the part 
of that branch, if the Constitution gives tto privi¬ 
leges to them, or to us? Suppose, Mr. Speaker, 
that the Senate, holding to the same doctrines a« 
have been set forth here, should practically deny 
the privileges of this House, and send their ser¬ 
geant-at-arms to arrest the otfender, being a mem¬ 
ber of this body, either within or without the bar, 
would there be any hair-splitting then ? Would 
not the House suddenly ascertain that they had 
privileges? And I may ask, sir, would we b« 
worthy to sit here did we not assert and defend 
them? We should, in such a case, hardly sit 
down to pore over the Constitution to find the 
letter and the words precisely applicable to such 
a case, but would bear ourselves as men, without 
a point to carry, and instinctively revert to the 
universal sentiment, that there is such a thing as 
parliamentary privilege, and that some great prin¬ 
ciple was involved in the issue. 

I believe that it is an accepted maxim, that 
every wrong supposes redress somewhere. If, 
then, the Senate cannot punish this offense, and 
has, in accordance with the usual course, made 
complaint to this House, how do we reach the 
case? It has been said in this debate, that the 
Senate should vindicate its own honor, and pun¬ 
ish all offenders against its dignity and privilege, 
itself. But who does not see that, when an 
offense is committed by a member of a coordinate 
branch, it is against comity—against the very 












5 


existence of two branches in a Legislature, that 
one should assume the power to punish the mem¬ 
bers of the other?—tliat such a course would 
infallibly result in striking from existence the 
feebler branch ? It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, 
that the way is clear to proceed as if we had ori¬ 
ginal jurisdiction, without any interference with 
any just prerogative of the Senate whatever. Is 
it not obvious, that a violation of the privileges 
of the Senate by a member of this body is also 
a breach of the privilege of this House? It is in 
contempt of its dignity, a flagrant offense against 
parliamentary propriety, an outrage on the very 
spirit of free institutions, and deserves the most 
signal rebuke which this House can admin¬ 
ister. 

If our jurisdiction is beyond reasonable ques¬ 
tion, and we may proceed to vindicate, not merely 
the privileges of the Senate, infringed upon by 
one of our number, but to vindicate our own 
privileges, violated as much as theirs, and even 
more, we ought to consider the nature of the act, 
as guiding us in an estimate of the punishment 
which should be inflicted. The evidence shows 
that the assault on the Senator from Massachu¬ 
setts was “ for words spoken in debate;” and, as 
such, it was a palpable violation of tlie Constitu¬ 
tion in its expess terms; and that Constitution 
every member of this House has sworn to sup¬ 
port. Governor Brown, of Mississippi, had an 
interview with Mr. Brooks very soon after the 
assault was committed, and the following state¬ 
ment was made to him by Mr. Brooks: 

‘•The town, I suppose, will be full of rumors in a few 
hours,and I desire niy friends to understand precisely what 
I have doiK!, and why I did it. llegardinj; the speech of 
Mr. SuMNKR as an atrocious libel on South Carolina, and a 
gross insult to iny absent relative, lud'^e Butler, I deter- I 
mined, when it was delivered^ to punish hiin for it.” 

Here there is no pretense that this assault was 
committed on account of the pxihlicalion of a libel 
on Senator Buti.er, or on the State of South Car¬ 
olina. This ingenious subterfuge was an after¬ 
thought of the gentleman from North Carolina, 
[Mr. Clingman,] who opened this debate. The 
fact is avowed by the assailant in the most dis¬ 
tinct and positive terms. 

Mr. BROOKS, (interrupting.) I take it for 
granted that tlie gentleman from Alassachusetts 
has no desire to do me injustice. I desire now 
to state to the House, tliat 1 did not hear the 
second day’s part of Mr. Sumner’s speech, which 
was the most objectionalile part; and I heard 
only a small portion of the first day’s. 

Mr. HALL. Then will the gentleman allow 
me to ask him a question? Was it to the first 
part of the speech which ho had heard that he re¬ 
ferred in the conversation with Governor Brown, 
when he said “ when it was delivered I determ¬ 
ined to punish him for it.” 

Mr. BROOKS. I cannotpretend to be accurate. 
It was a loose conversation that I had with Gov¬ 
ernor Brown I had no reference at the time to 
the discrimination between hearing and reading. 

It was a mere accidental expression that I used. 
Upon my responsibility, and upon my oath if 
necessary, I say that I did not hear the speech 
made on the second day, which was the most 
offensive, and heard very little of the first day’s 
speech. 

Mr. HALL. The gentleman from South Caro¬ 


lina will understand me to speak now from the 
evidence in my possession. 

Mr. BROOKS. Oh ! certainly, sir. 

Mr. KEITT. I wish to make a remark in re¬ 
lation to the point raised between the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Hall] and my col¬ 
league, [Mr. Brooks.] He [Mr. Brooks] said, 
in the conversation which ensued between my 
colleague and Governor Brown, that he determ¬ 
ined on his course after he had read the speech. 
That has been, and still is, my decided impres¬ 
sion; and it is enhanced by the fact, which I re¬ 
member very distinctly, that he proceeded im¬ 
mediately to repeat what had passed between 
himself and Senator Sumner —that he had said to 
Mr. Sumner when he approached him, “ 1 have 
read your speech twice and carefully, ”&a. That 
was a part of the res gestae. I am sure that he 
told Governor Brown that he determined on hia 
course after reading the speech. 

Mr. HALL. Sir, the evidence further shows 
thatthisattack was calmly premeditated. Mr. Ed¬ 
mondson’s testimony is conclusive on this point. 
He says, in substance, that Mr. Brooks informed 
him of his purpose; and itappears that they actu¬ 
ally advised together as to the place where it should 
take place. It is not denied that the assault was 
violent; and notwithstanding the attempt of the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Clingman] 
to turn the whole into ridicule, and the adroit 
mystification of the physician’s testimony by the 
gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Orr,] the 
whole proof goes to show that it was a case of 
unusual and aggravated violence. Sir, if the as¬ 
sault was not designed to destroy life, and I do 
not think it was, it was designed so to disgrace 
the Senator as effectually to destroy him in future 
influence, and to paralyze further exertion in the 
discharge of his high duties. It was designed to 
brutalize him under the influence of fear, and to 
strike from his brow his crown of manliness, and 
to crush down his spirit. The natural effect of 
this act of Mr. Brooks was to deprive the Senate 
of the services and influence of one of its most 
distinguished members—to defraud a State of her 
fiiir representation—to insult the people who 
formed the constituency of Mr. Sumner. 

Sir, this is not to be regarded as a mere per¬ 
sonal quarrel—a simple congressional broil—a 
fracas between individual foes. The tone of levity 
which gentlemen have permitted themselves to 
use when endeavoring to make this representa¬ 
tion, deserves sharp rebuke. No, sir; this strik¬ 
ing down of a Senator in his place, within the 
very Senate-house itself, and for words spoken 
in that place under tlie sanction of the Constitu¬ 
tion, is a graver offense than this. It is alike an 
indignity to an ancient Commonwealth, and an 
insult to her sovereignty, which must not pass 
unavenged. And then, sir, above and beyond 
all this, the transaction assumes a graver asjiect, 
as a violence done to great principles which un¬ 
derlie the fabric of this Government. 

When the weapon of the member from South 
Carolina fell on the devoted head of the Senator 
from Massachusetts, it was not so much Charles 
Sumner that was stricken down —it was not so 
much the representative of the sovereignty of 
Massachusetts that was then overpowered, but it 
was freedom of speech in debate which was as¬ 
saulted; a ruffian hand laid hold on a chief pillar 

















f 


of our liberties, and sought to shake it down. 
It was a ruthless attack on a right secured to the 
people by the Constitution; and if it is to be jus¬ 
tified and go free of punishment, the day will soon 
begin to dawn which will witness the destruction 
of all our free institutions, ere its deepening twi¬ 
light fades into the thick darkness of a long night 
of ruin and despair. 

Sir, freedom of debate is the very breath of 
representative government. Happily, it is not 
necessary for us to provide safeguards against the 
power of the Crown, as our fathers did, when 
they wrested this liberty from the hand of power. 
We need not to strive, as have the Commons of 
England, for this privilege, from the time when 
they were summoned by Henry IV., down 
through all the reigns, until they so nobly vindi¬ 
cated it in the Parliament of Charles I., when 
Hampden and Pyni and Sir John Elliot asserted 
and triumphantly sustained it. Our danger is 
from the other side; and if we cannot preserve 
this right, not merely against the encroachments 
of the Executive, but the terrorism of ruffianly 
parties amongst ourselves, our boasted liberty will 
become a very vulgar and cruel despotism. It is 
the high prerogative of the people, as ancient as 
their enfranchisement, to discuss public measures 
and public men. It is beyond controversy; it is 
natural and indefeasible; it is not to be challenged 
any more than the right of the commonest to 
breathe the air, or to walk the earth. A right in 
private life—it is a duty in public life. It is even 
rather to be tolerated in some excess than, by the 
least restriction, to accommodate itself to tyranny, 
or to become the instrument of oppression. It is 
honorable to stand out on the extremest verge of 
that right, and sternly to defy whoever would 
seek to thrust it down. The true man will defend 
it at all times and under all circumstances, come 
what may; and if he can leave no other inherit¬ 
ance to his children, he will enrich them with the 
precious legacy of free principles, and the exam¬ 
ple of a manly, independent, and constitutional 
defense of them. 

“ This is true liberty, when free-born men, 

Having to advise tiie public, may speak free ; 

Wliicli he who can, and will, deserves hijih praise: 

Who neither can, nor will, may hold his peace: 

What can be juster in a State than this ?” 

Sir, this is as old as Euripides, and was thought 
worthy to be translated by John Milton. 

The effect of this outrage on 4,he reputation of 
Congress and the country ought to have due con¬ 
sideration. Are the representative chambers of 
the freest and most enlightened people on earth to 
become the theater of such scenes as make up the 
history of the Polish Diet—where men satin mail, 
and whose deliberations were overawed and con¬ 
trolled by the sword ? Is the reign of terror, when 
life and limb are imperiled for the fearless dis¬ 
charge of legislative duty, to be inaugurated, and 
exceed the atrocities of French history by not 
even going through the mockeries of le<>:al forms ? 
The gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. Cling- 
MAN,] —from the spirit of whose speech we must 
judge that he “ would have the cudgel hallowed 
and hung over the altar”—says that many such 
scenes have occurred before, and have been passed 
oyer without notice, and seems to imply that such 
things are to be expected in an American Con¬ 
gress. “Pity ’t is, ’t is true,” so far as the 

✓ 


6 ’ 0 


past is concerned, 
compare with this outrage in all the elements of 
wrongAnd is it not time that the spirit of 
lawless violence should be restrained.^ God for¬ 
bid that the erroneous and faulty past should 
be a justification for the present and the future! 
Your Congress will become a hissing and a by- 
i word at home, and be the synonym for what- 
' ever is despicable abroad. Already, voices of 
condemnation come up from the people, for 
your delay in executing justice in this matter. 
Massachusetts palpitates with indignation that 
the crown of her sovereignty, which has been 
trampled in the dust, is not restored to its original 
luster by your care. The free States seem to 
have but one voice in reprobating this outrage on 
their birthright, and are impatient at the tardy 
march of retribution. There is, too, a conserva¬ 
tive South—all there are not extreme men, de¬ 
voting all t(> their section, and yielding nothing 
for their country—and these wait for your judg¬ 
ment. From abroad, responses have already 
come. The Times, in speaking of Mr. Cramp- 
ton’s dismissal, affirms the difficulty of finding a 
minister to be sent to Washington on account of 
the uncongenial state of things here, and in its 
reproaches of the barbarism which it affirms to 
exist, cites as the chief evidence that our “ legis¬ 
lators cannot refrain from cudgeling each other in 
the Senate-house.” I speak from authentic in¬ 
formation when I say, that all over Europe, in 
cafes, in salons, in hovels and in palaces, this as¬ 
sault is the subject of anxious inquiry and com¬ 
mon conversation, to the detriment of our na¬ 
tional reputation, and to the serious damage of 
the cause of liberalism. If our experiment of 
free government is to develop such results as this, 
will the struggle for free chambers and constitu¬ 
tional liberty be aided in Sardinia, in France, in 
1 Germany, or in Italy } If our tree of liberty bears 
[such bitter fruit, its leaves will scarcely be sought 
I for the healing of the oppressed nations, 
j Now, sir, what justification is attempted to b« 
set up.^ Why, we are told that the relative of 
Mr. Brooks and the reputation of his State wer® 
attacked, 1 do not deny that Mr. Brooks thought 
it was his duty to act as champion of his family 
and State. There is no doubt that his mind was 
fully possessed with this delusion. But who gav© 
him mission.’ By what authority has he been 
constituted the censor of debate, and the Ajax of 
South Carolina.’ Why should he, of all other 
men, assume the guardianship of the Senate and 
subjugate them into a mere congregation of servile 
tools who may speak only what they are permitted 
to speak, under correction of the cudgel.’ I know 
not the degree of consanguinity or affinity that 
exists between the Senator from South Carolina 
and Mr. Brooks; but, whatever it may be, near 
or remote—though it should be so near as that of 
i the relation of a son to a father, by the common 
! law, no such words as were used by Mr. Su.mnlr, 
or which could be used by him, or others, are a 
justification for violence. Tlie vindication of 
family fame is not to be enforced by blows in the 
chief council of the nation. 

But it is said that the speech of Mr. Sumner 
was unprecedentedly severe, and on this floor it 
has been denounced as such, in a series of epi¬ 
thets, by the gentleman from North Carolina, 
which shows how well qualified he is to be the 














7 


judge. Sir, that speech was severe—and designed 
to be severe; so far as it was personal, it was in 
retaliation for a long series of injuries and vol¬ 
umes of abuse. But it is yet to be proved that 
it was unparliamentary, and so beyond the de¬ 
fense of privilege. The speaker was not once 
interrupted by calls to order by the listening 
Senate, and proceeded unchecked to his close. 
Compared with other speeches in the same 
branch, it is scarcely more severe than many j 
which have been uttered there, and particularly 
not more exceptionable to the fastidious than 
those of his opponent. 

Sir, what was the subject of that speech—what 
was tlie occasion of its delivery, and what the end 
to be accomplished by it? It was no less than to 
protect a wide Territory from the curse of slavery, ! 
to vindicate the principles of freedom, and to re¬ 
buke the arrogance and assumptions of the slave 
power. It was becoming on such a theme that 
Its advocate should be impassioned, and that his 
utterances should be words of fire. Is it a new 
thing for apostles of liberty to pour out their souls 
in eloquent voices, and to use strong Saxon, the 
native tongue of freedom, exhausting its treas¬ 
ures of brave words? Do we criticize coolly 
Hampden or Sidney? Would we wish that 
Samuel Adams had waked the echoes of Faneuil 
Hall less forcibly? Would we rebuke Patrick 
Henry for his fierce denunciations of British op¬ 
pression, and his vituperation of the king? Do 
we to-day censure James Otis for his bold words 
spoken under the liberty tree in Boston, and com¬ 
mend the ruffian whose brutal blows were the 
occasion of the obscuration of his intellect, and 
who lingered afterwards till the lightning’s flash 
emancipated his darkened spirit; a death the Ro¬ 
mans would have esteemed a favor from the 
gods ? 

Sir, in those days South Carolina, and the gal¬ 
lant South, had no words of condemnation for 
golden utterances for liberty. She generously 
applauded the patriots of the Revolution, and all 
these names are dear to her, as to us. Why 
should South Carolina to-day be so unlike the 
South Carolina of the times which tried men’s 
souls? 

Sir, if Mr. Sumker’s speech needed castiga- 
'on, it might have been safely left to the reply of 
re Senator from South Carolina, who has proved j 
n other occasions, before and since, that he is 
altogether sufficient to cross weapons in such an 
encounter, and to take summary and signal re¬ 
venge. 

We are told, on high authority, that if Mr. 
Brooks had failed to discharge this assumed duty, j 
he could not go back to South Carolina. If this is | 
go, a most unfortunate and extraordinary state of 
things exists in the Palmetto State. I congratu¬ 
late myself and the country, that had any Mas¬ 
sachusetts member invaded the sanctity of the , 
Senate Chamber, and avenged the affronts of j 
Massachusetts’s favorite Senator by brutal vio¬ 
lence, he could not have gone back to the old Bay 
State except as an outcast and a stranger. Sir, 
Massachusetts loves free institutions too well— 
she is too faithful to her obligations to law and 
order, to tolerate such an offense against the ma¬ 
jesty of freegovernment, even though the offender 
should sin through too jealous a regard for her 
good name. 


Mr. Speaker, if this proceeding was designed 
to effect anything beyond personal injury to Mr. 
Sumner, it was « capital blunder. It is well that 
this should be distinctly understood by all con¬ 
cerned. The power which guided the hand of 
the member from South Carolina in this assault 
was the power of slavery. Its mandate prompted 
the act: at its behest the deed was done. The 
arrogance and assumption of that power culmin- 
j ated here. But, sir, it is but an indication of an 
insane desperation, when the attempt is made to 
crush out free speech by blows. Slavery no 
doubt dreads, as its most direful enemy, the lib- • 
erty of free discussion; but this adversary can 
be vanquished in no other way but by its own 
weapons. So soon as force is evoked and applied, 

! the rebound is terrible. The free tongue will not 
be paralyzed by force. The opposition to slavery, 
as now organized, is constitutional and legal. It 
is also conscientious. It is founded on the fixed 
and sober conviction, that the spread of slavery 
is destructive to the interests of the people and 
dangerous to the stability of the Government. 

All experience confirms these statements. There 
is no band of fanatics at the North to be feared. 
There is no longer only an outpouring of feeling 
on this subject by tender consciences and gentle 
natures. Sentiment has crystalized into principle^ 
and it has adamantine strength. The repeal of 
the Missouri compromise is fast uniting the North 
into a solid phalanx, who insist on the reparation 
of a violated faith, and who insist likewise on 
some equivalent for the wrongs of which they 
complain. Their deep determination must find a 
way for the accomplishment of their fixed pur¬ 
pose to limit the further extension of this evil in 
the Territories, which are the common property 
of the North and the South. Under the influeno* 
of this purpose they will march steadily on to 
their success. Outbreaks of violence will not deter 
them, menaces will not overawe them, scorn will 
not abash them. In the panoply of well-ascer¬ 
tained right they go forth to the encounter—con¬ 
sciously invincible. They raise the battle-cry 
of their fathers, and garner up their hopes in their 
fathers’ God. They know the limit of constitu¬ 
tional opposition, and to that limit they will walk, 
and walk fearlessly. If they can find in the his¬ 
tory of their country any precedent for stepping 
over it, I believe they are not disposed to follow 
it. While struggling for the right, they will be 
careful always to preserve the moral support of a 
simple integrity to back up their determination. 

If, therefore, it is the purpose of this resort to 
force, to check the freedom of inquiry, discus¬ 
sion, and debate, such a purpose cannot be ex¬ 
ecuted. I repeat, sir, it is a capital blunder; and 
it was Talleyrand, I believe, who uttered that 
stinging sentiment, that a blunder is worse than a 
crime. 

Of course I can come to no other conclusion 
in this matter than that the report of the com¬ 
mittee should be adopted, and the course which 
they recommend should be pursued. Let the 
House vindicate its own privileges, which are 
the privileges of the people, and signally rebuke 
the unparalleled outrage which has been com¬ 
mitted. As a Massachusetts man, I can do no 
less than accede to the request of her Legislature, 
which I heartily approve. Their resolutions 
have been ridiculed on this floor in the course of 


1 















8 


the debate;*but such shafts as these are power¬ 
less. The resolutions are right. Sir, Massachu¬ 
setts has a right to present them; and I am ready 
to declare that they express the sentiments of 
the vast majority of her people. It has become 
somewhat fashionable in this Congress to assail 
Massachusetts. Happily she needs no defense. 
There is her history—her glorious past, her pros¬ 
perous present, her promising future. She can 
afford to smile, while envy snarls, or malice rages. 
But if these assaults are designed to intimidate 
her, she points you to herescutcheon, and beneath 
- her cognizance of the mailed arm, her legend 
reads; “£nsc petit placidmn, sub libertate quietem.’^ 
But, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget, in the 
excitement of these controversies, that we are all 
countrymen—that we have a common inheritance 
in the great rights which are our blessing and our 
pride. I confess to as much State pride as any 
man. It may be an infirmity in Massachusetts | 
men, who are native to her soil, but it is shared 1 


V (■ 


in kind by the Virginian and the Carolinian. 
The reason undoubtedly is, that we are more 
homogeneous as a people than the mixed popula¬ 
tion of some other States. Each has an ancestry 
distinct and peculiar, whether Cavalier, Hugue¬ 
not, or Puritan. It is a generous infirmity—at 
least, there is no baseness in it, and its inspira¬ 
tions are often beneficial, and sometimes mag¬ 
nanimous. It only becomes wrong when it fur¬ 
nishes occasions for strife. We should guard 
against its influence when it interferes with a 
lofty, generous American patriotism. “ E pluri- 
bus unum” is the motto of our shield; and no 
blow aimed at one of the States but is felt 
throughout the electric chain which binds them 
all in unity. We sit here the representatives of 
the country : let the common fame and interests 
of that country be our care. If that fame is dis¬ 
honored by the offense which has been com¬ 
mitted, let us frankly and fearlessly say so, and 
vindicate the privileges of our birthright. 


'■ ’:'n' ' 

- ; ; ' . 















.: 1 


I 








( 
















